Lexmark Loses Patent Case Regarding Resale of Toner Cartridges

The U.S. Supreme Court ^ | 5/30/2017 | Supreme Court

[Freeport]

They’ll need to go after individual contract signee’s for a breach of contract to get anything back. The refiller is faultless.

[zeugma]

Good post. I surmise that the decision also bodes ill for the patent over reach by Monsanto and other seed producers.

True. I didn't even consider the seed issues.

[zeugma]

Software? How does this not apply to software? They say you're leasing the software, but it's a defacto sale.

I have no idea how this can be treated any different. Of course, the U.S. legal system is a place where they can believe 5 contradictory things at the same time, and think themselves clever, so it's hardly surprising. It will be interesting to see if anyone is able to follow up on software, though it's generally held to be covered under copyright law which is quite different from patent law, though there are similarities.

[zeugma]

Could this principle be used to break the Home Owner Association scam on the ownership of real estate.

I like it! Great thinking outside of the box! Personally, I've always thought of the requirement to sign up with a homeowners association to be closer to codicils that would stipulate that your house couldn't be purchased by jews or blacks.

[zeugma]

If these “refilling” companies were buying one cartridge and making physical copies, they would be at the losing end of this one.

It's more similar if you're talking about a physical object, like a CD. If I purchase a copy of Windows (why? I don't know), I should be able to sell the disk to someone else without any issues.